With the simuposts now I have to clarify things. I was asking about the “Uh, Sex is Punny” rant about four posts above.
But darn it, your honor, it wasn’t gratuitious! The guy who STARTED this thread hurled a gratuitious insult at Christians with his original post. He was gratuitously obscene and combative. I rose to the challenge. Are you telling me that it is ok for him to put the words “fucking queer” into the mouths of his percieved enemies, yet when I say “PC crybaby” I’m stepping over the line?
Your honor, I must object!
Satan wrote:
About it being you specifically, yes.
My impression of Señor Mandrake is that he seems to know how to get our collective goats a little … too well. I therefore suspect that he may either (A) have lurked here for a while reading messages before he decided to “pounce”, or (B) be … cringe … one of us!! Oh no! Maybe he’s Wally! Maybe he’s David B! Maybe he’s me! Well, okay, I know he’s not me – but you wouldn’t be able to know he’s not me without checking out the originating e-mail addresses or IP addresses or whatnot.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Objection noted, but not sustained.
I do not think anyone would deny that “love thy neightbor…unless he’s a fucking queer” is NOT in the Bible, so it is not an insult to all Christians, only Christians who do not understand their own holy book. It in fact implies that the Bible is a good thing. Are you defending those who pervert your religion (assuming you’re Christian)?
You, on the other hand, are directly and frequently insulting actual people on this board without sufficient provocation. This is not acceptable behavior here, and I do not think in necessary to discuss it further on this board. You may email me if you have further objections.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Lionel, I’m in a bit of a hurry so instead of responding in full to whatever the hell you said (I’m sure someone else will probably suckered to), I’ll just ask you this:
Camille Paglia is a lesbian. Is she funny? Does she define her self by her sexuality? Does she make you “snigger”?
Well, goodness. I go out of town for a week and look what happens, a whole brand new crop of trolls pop up. (Yes, I realize that by virtue of my recent arrival on the boards I must be careful to avoid being categorized amongst them.)
If, and I do say IF, it is possible to simply ignore the irrelevant and offensive rantings of Mr. Mandrake, I’d like to try to go back to the OP. I won’t claim to be a historian or constitutional lawyer, but I will say that it is my understanding that the framers of the Constitution were very careful to avoid specifying a role for religion in their new nation because so many of the citizens of this country had been persecuted for their religious beliefs. So the general attitude was: the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen of this country are not influenced by the practiced religion, or lack thereof, of the citizen in question.
But let me go back to the Pledge of Allegiance we all learned as children:
“…and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible…”
Now, that is not stating that the nation is necessarily Christian, but it does, to my mind, imply a distinctly theist nature.
Thoughts? Mr. Mandrake, your opinion is neither requested nor desired.
Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
Felice- the ‘under God’ section of the Pledge of Allegiance was not added until the 1950’s, under Eisenhower.
That having been said: my personal opinion is that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles; it was founded upon Greco-Roman principles.
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
You’re right, John- but it was, after all, Congress that made that amendment to it. So perhaps it would be better to say that the country (as represented by Congress) was more theistic in the 1950s than it was originally?
What do you mean, greco-roman?
Thank you, Gaudere.
Lionel, you seem to be exulting in your capacity to laugh at others. Fine by me. But you made the lovely blanket statement:
Sorry, but you can’t speak for everyone. I take sex very seriously–it’s often joyful and mirthful, but rarely ridiculous. I don’t presume to laugh at other people for looking funny. And I personally don’t find sex to be incongruous, gay or straight.
For that matter, I never said a word about latency, and I never called you a homophobe (silly word, but you know what I mean). I just wondered why you gave (to me) the appearance of being anti-gay. That was my interpretation of some of your words. If I’m wrong, tell me. Politely would be nice. If I’m right, please share why you don’t like gays. Religious reasons? Just say so, and I’ll respect your position.
Once again, the OP was not about sex, gender roles. Thanks, Felice for reminding us of that.
And FTR, Lionel, my faith or lack thereof, while being none of your business, also will not change and has not changed simply because of stressful circumstances. I will not magically become Christian simply because I’m about to die or deathly ill or find out my SO has three days to live, whatever you might think.
-andros-
Felice said:
Hmmm. Tough call. I don’t believe that the country was more theistic in the 1950’s than it was when the country was founded. In terms of individual practice, I’d believe that individual Americans tended to be more religious and adherents of Christianity than in the 1950’s; although, given the religious revivalism and new theologies of the early 19th century, I may be ascribing attitudes in colonial America that wouldn’t develop for another fifty years or so. Goodness knows that by the middle of the 19th century, a religious belief in God permeated much of government (read over Lincoln’s speeches, especially the Second Inaugural and the Gettysburg Address; take a look at some of the marching songs of the Civil War; etc.)
However, I think that in the 18th century, the mindset was that religion should not be part of government, for fear that government would control religion (in many ways, a reaction against the government support of the Anglican religion, both in taxes and in suppressing other religious beliefs). By the 1950’s, the mindset was a fear that government was moving so far away from religion as to be without a sense of moral basis; partially, this was a reaction against the absolute atheism of the Communist governments (and therefore, those who opposed the idea of God in the government and the classroom had to be Communists, because they were obviously atheists).
The idea that men had basic rights, and that men deserved a say in the governments that controlled them. True, these ideas weren’t well put to use by the Greek City-states and by the Roman Republic, and were truly fleshed out by the thinkers of the Enlightenment; but the original principles of government being representative of the people, and beholden to the people- as opposed to government being run by an autocrat, and beholden only to those who could threaten the autocrat’s position- were Greco-Roman.
In fact, I’d probably be able to argue that if the country were truly founded upon Christian principles, we’d be a monarchy. Nothing in the Bible specifically states that people are born with the right to have a say in the affairs of government, or to speak their minds without fear of recrimination; many of the leaders of the Bible (David, Solomon, etc.) were absolute monarchs who passed rule down to their children- if not an endorsement of monarchy, at the very least not a condemnation.
Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
Absolutely right. And many of the rules and laws established in this country, while in accord with Christian morality, are also in accord with moralities of other religions as well.
That is, to say that “we prohibit murder because we’re a Christian nation” is silly–it’s not as if other religions condone murder. Ditto for rape, theft, assault, etc.
(aside)
Hey, it’s a good thing the US wasn’t built on Islamic principles, or most of our elected officials would be missing a hand or two.
::rimshot::
(Thank you, thank you, we’ll be here all week.)
-andros-
andros said:
You don’t even want to think about what Bill Clinton would be missing… (ba-du-bump)
Oh, and Lionel? I know an atheist who served in the military in combat situations. The proverbial atheist in a foxhole, as it were.
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
Mmmm…I’m not sure I agree with that, John. I would propose, instead, that the increase in professed theism was due to a fear in individual people of being considered to be an atheist/communist and falling under Joe McCarthy’s bootheel. What do you think?
Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
I agree with the rest of your post, btw, John. Thanks for clarifying. I could make some derogatory remarks about the ‘democracy’ of the Greeks, and the early US, being limited to adult male property owners, but I won’t. As you said, their ideas were sound, even if the implementation took a bit of time.
Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
What about the ‘resurgence’ in conspicuous Christianity seen in the '50s as a precursor the type of fundamentalist Christianity seen today? I concur with Mr. Corrado’s assessment of government reaction to the atheistic feature of communism - I would say that this is a practice which contiunes today.
While the threat of commies in our midst has certainly decreased, this has not stopped many of the more vocal fundamentalist elements from demanding a ‘return’ to ‘family values’, and the kind of God-fearing society that America was envisioned to be when it was founded. Accompanied with this we see a whole lot of finger-pointing at those who cannot provide a spotless attendance record at their local church. Double-ditto for those who may be seeking election to public office.
Personal belief is one thing, and as long as it remains personal, which religion should be, it is wholly commendable. But it should not be a criterion by which one’s character is judged.
And what’s the deal with the “In God We Trust” bit on the currency? You may claim that it doesn’t specifically reference the Christian God, but I think it carries the same inference as it would if it read “In Allah We Trust”, “In Yahweh We Trust”, or “In Buddha We Trust”. (Or Shiva, or whatever). I’m not saying “Change it!” or anything like that, but it does seem rather contradictory for a government based on separation of Church and State.
Z
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
She IS? Oh my god! (look of deep shock.)
Funny? Yes sometimes. She’s very witty. I’ll bet she sings and dances well too.
Define herself by her sexuality? Nope. She has more to talk about than just that. As the quote I posted should indicate. . .
Snigger? Yea sometimes. Everything does. Maybe it’s a chemical imbalance or something.
“This day is called the Feast of Crispian,” --Henry V
John Corrado, for posting
wins the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches, begun when Mrs. P, at a time when we were pinching pennies, dropped and spilled our last half-gallon of milk, burst into tears about it, and in an effort to comfort her, said without thinking, “It’s all right; there’s no use crying over…” and we both fell down laughing. 
Mssr. Polycarp, should you not mind, I’m changing my sig…
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
[quote]
Originally posted by andros:
**Thank you, Gaudere.
[QUOTE]
Ohhhh! The teacher yelled at me! I’m so ashamed. Was it you who narced on me andros? If so, thanks. I mean it. I’m glad I could bring you some simple happiness. That’s all I want out of life. I’m like Santa, or maybe I’m more like Gastone the French waiter in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life”, I just want to spread joy and contentment wherever I go.
“anti-gay”? Lord, you know. . . ahhhghhha!
No, wait Lionel, hold your tongue. The teacher is right there with his ruler, ready to rap your knuckles if you express yourself properly.
What has happened to you people on the Left? I mean really, seriously, when exactly was it that you all lost your sense of humor?
“anti-gay” Sheesh! What does that even mean? I’m the gayest SOB you’ll ever want to see. Here I go skipping down the lane, tra la la la la! I’m so happy and gay. Just like the Flintstones, I’m having a gay old time.
I drop into a topic and the first post I see has the tag line: "Love thy neighbor, unless he’s a fucking queer.-- Not the Bible " and so I think to myself, great, here is a bunch of people who share my sense of fun – not my own opinions necessarily, probably we agree on nothing – but they MUST share with me that indefinable quality, sensibility.
WRONG! Turns out I’m having tea in a stuffy parlor with a Victorian old maid. She’s got a dour expression of disaproval on her face and strict rules about every damn thing. Sit up straight! Don’t talk with your mouth full!
If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all!
Sheesh! That’s the PC left today. A Victorian old maid. A tidy little mind, with everybody in a tidy little niche “African-american” “woman” “gay” “white-male”, and a tidy little notion of the “fairness” due to each. AHHHHHHHHHHH! Kick the damn table over and watch her get so shocked the pins fly out of her hair and it all puffs out like a charge of flash powder going off. POOF!
I don’t know if anybody here knows it, but the Left wasn’t always so stuffy. Why I remember reading in one of Hunter S.Thompson’s books about a time when the Good Doctor was at the America’s Cup, and he was bored, so he decided that the thing to do was row out to one of the yachts at night, while it was tied up at the dock, and spray-paint the words “FUCK THE POPE” on the side of it. The idea was that nobody would be able to see the graffiti – the dock would conceal it – until the boat pulled away for the start of the race. And then there it would be, in all its blazing madness.
What happened to that spirit? When did the left lose its Mojo? When did prissy, uptight, super-yuppies from Hell like Hillary Clinton take over?
And gay people? Homos, queers, flyboys, free-spirts, I-cover-the-waterfronts, what is with them? When did they all turn into an unholy alien hybrid of June Cleaver and the Wicked Witch of the West? All middle-class and finger wagging. “Watch your language! Don’t say that word, say this one instead!” “If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to get married now. . .” Lord almighty.
You’re doomed you leftists. Do you know that? Doomed.
When the GAY people (and their advocates) are the uptight ones, all hung up on prim and proper courtesy, and middle-class values (begging to be alowed to get married) and it’s the Christian who’s giggling like a loon, howling at the moon, and as a result getting his pee-pee slapped by the local authority figure, well. . .
[QUOTE]
**
No future!
No future!
No future. . . for you!
–The Sex Pistols
**
[QUOTE]
Sigh.
Coventry it is then.